Secular Humanism: Is It A Religion?

February 18, 1986|By James J. Kilpatrick, Universal Press Syndicate

WASHINGTON — In recent years the Supreme Court has grappled with some tough cases involving the separation of church and state, but a case now developing in Mobile County, Ala., eventually may provide the toughest case of all. It raises a thorny question: In their effort not to indoctrinate children in ''religion,'' are the public schools in fact indoctrinating children in ''religion''?

Under the Constitution, as we know, the states may not in any way foster an ''establishment of religion.'' There can be no official prayers, no reading of Bible verses, no recitation of the Lord's Prayer, no posting of the 10 Commandments in a classroom. This is well-understood. A teacher who sought to convince pupils that God exists, and that a divine power created our solar system, would be in deep trouble.

But what if the thrust of public school instruction is in the opposite direction -- that God does not exist, and that our universe came into being by accident? Is it ''religion'' to teach that God is, but not religion to teach that God is not?

The questions lie at the heart of a suit brought by 600 parents against the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County.

The plaintiffs contend that ''secular humanism'' is for all constitutional purposes an establishment of religion. They assert that this religion is being systematically taught through the textbooks and teaching materials used in Mobile schools. They ask a U.S. District judge to halt the use of these texts and to order them replaced by others in which God gets a fair shake.

What is secular humanism? Its doctrines have been clearly defined in the Humanist Manifesto of 1933, in a second Humanist Manifesto of 1973, and in a Declaration of Humanism in 1980. Humanists describe themselves as ''non- theists.'' They hold that man has no ''soul,'' that man is only a complex animal, that God is a ''myth,'' that professions of faith in God (such as ''In God We Trust'') are ''meaningless and irrelevant.''

To the humanist, science and reason are the be-all and end-all. There is no life after death. Orthodox religious teachings are ''sham.'' Man's purpose on Earth is to pursue his own happiness. Sexual conduct should not be ''unduly repressed'' by the ''intolerant attitudes'' of orthodox religions. There are no absolute moral or ethical values. These are ''situational.''

The trouble, from a constitutional standpoint, is that these convictions amount to articles of faith. The Supreme Court itself has held, in the Torcaso case of 1961, that ''among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, ethical culture, secular humanism and others.'' As a matter of law, secular humanism is as clearly a religion as Christianity or Judaism.

Are its precepts embodied in public school curricula? The evidence appears to be overwhelming in support of that view. Plaintiffs in the Mobile case have offered half a dozen expert witnesses who have testified to the literally ''godless'' nature of teaching materials. Such prominent humanists as Charles Francis Potter and Paul Blanshard have described education as ''a most powerful ally'' and ''the most important factor moving us toward a secular society.'' A recent (1983) prize-winning essay in The Humanist, official journal of the American Humanist Association, expressed a conviction that ''the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith.''

All this is deeply troublesome. I hold no brief for the kind of rabid fundamentalist who would ban the reading of Romeo and Juliet because it promotes illicit sex. There is something loony in the notion that The Scarlet Letter sanctions witchcraft. The idea of federal judges functioning as textbook committees is a melancholy idea.

All the same, I think the Mobile County plaintiffs have made their case. One of these years the Supreme Court will have the last word.